5/17/17

"THE BOOK OF ACTS"
Paul Before Festus And Agrippa (25:1-27)INTRODUCTION
1. While Felix remained governor, Paul remained in Caesarea...
a. Though he did enjoy some privileges - Ac 24:23
b. But he was imprisoned for two years - Ac 24:27
2. Finally, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus... - Ac 24:27
a. Who assumed the office by Nero's appointment in A.D. 60 - HIBD
b. Who held the office until his death in A.D. 62 - ibid.
c. Josephus describes Festus as prudent and honorable governor - ISBE, Revised
[We catch a glimpse of Festus' character in his handling of Paul's case
inherited from Felix's own procrastination...]
I. PAUL BEFORE FESTUSA. THE JEWS PETITION FESTUS...
1. Shortly after arriving, Festus traveled from Caesarea to Jerusalem - Ac 25:1
2. The high priest and chief men informed Festus of Paul - Ac 25:2
3. They petitioned him to bring Paul back to Jerusalem - Ac 25:2-3
4. Meanwhile the Jews plotted to ambush and kill Paul - Ac 25:3
5. Festus answered that Paul should be kept in Caesarea - Ac 25:4
6. He invited the Jews in authority to Caesarea to accuse Paul there - Ac 25:5B. PAUL'S DEFENSE BEFORE FESTUS...
1. After ten days in Jerusalem, Festus returned to Caesarea - Ac 25:6
2. The next day he commanded Paul brought before the judgment seat- Ac 25:6
3. The Jews from Jerusalem laid serious but unproved complaints
against Paul - Ac 25:7
4. Paul replied, "Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against
the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended in anything at all." - Ac 25:8C. PAUL'S APPEAL TO CAESAR...
1. Festus asked Paul if he would go to Jerusalem with him - Ac 25:9
a. Festus wanted to do the Jews a favor
b. He suggested that he would judge Paul there
2. Paul objected to being taken to Jerusalem - Ac 25:10-11
a. He stood at Caesar's judgment seat where he ought to be judged
b. He had done no wrong to the Jews, as Festus knew
c. Paul was willing to die if he had committed anything worthy of death
d. But there was nothing in the charges of which he was accused
3. Paul therefore appealed to Caesar - Ac 25:11-12
a. As a Roman citizen he had the right to appeal his case before Caesar - ESVSB
b. Caesar at that time was the emperor Nero - ibid.
[Conferring with his council Festus answered, "You have appealed to
Caesar? To Caesar you shall go!" (Ac 25:12). Before sending Paul to
the Roman Caesar, Festus took advantage of a visit by a Jewish king...]
II. PAUL BEFORE AGRIPPAA. FESTUS PRESENTS PAUL'S CASE TO KING AGRIPPA...
1. After some days, King Agrippa and Bernice came to Caesarea to
greet Festus - Ac 25:13
a. Agrippa was Agrippa II - HIBD
1) Son of Herod Agrippa I, who killed James - Ac 12:1
2) Great-grandson of Herod the Great, who killed the babies- Mt 2:1-18
b. Bernice was the half-sister of Agrippa - AYBD
1) She married Marcus Julius Alexander in A.D. 41
2) After Marcus' death, she married her uncle Herod of
Chalchis in A.D. 44
3) After Herod died in A.D. 48, she became Agrippa's constant
companion (some think it was an incestuous relationship)
4) Because of such regarding her brother, she eventually
married Polemo king of Cilicia
5) She finally became the mistress of the Roman emperor Titus
2. Festus laid Paul's case before Agrippa - Ac 25:14-21
a. He noted that Felix had left Paul a prisoner
b. The chief priests and elders of the Jews informed Festus about Paul
c. He told the Jews that it was not Roman custom to deliver the
accused for "destruction" without the accused having the
opportunity to answer the charges
d. Festus had Paul come before the judgment seat
e. Festus discovered nothing wrong, other than there were
questions about "their own religion and about a certain
Jesus, who had died, whom Paul affirmed to be alive"
f. Festus asked Paul to go to Jerusalem, since he was uncertain
about these matters
g. Paul then appealed to Caesar
3. Agrippa wanted to hear Paul, and Festus promised a hearing the
next day - Ac 25:22B. PAUL BEFORE AGRIPPA AND BERNICE...
1. The next day Festus commanded Paul brought forth - Ac 25:23
a. Following the arrival of Agrippa and Bernice with great pomp
b. Before an audience of commanders and prominent men of the city
2. Festus explained the situation to Agrippa and the men gathered- Ac 25:24-27
a. In Jerusalem and Caesarea the Jews claimed Paul was not "fit
to live any longer"
b. Festus had found that Paul committed nothing deserving death
c. Paul had appealed to Caesar, and Festus was going to send him
d. But he had nothing to write to Caesar about Paul
e. He hoped after Agrippa's examination of Paul, he may have
something to write
f. For he thought it unreasonable to send a prisoner to Caesar
without specifying charges
CONCLUSION
1. At this point, King Agrippa permitted Paul to speak for himself...
a. Paul's defense before Agrippa is covered in the next chapter - Ac 26:1-32
b. Which we shall consider in our next study
2. Luke detailed account of these events may have been for a particular reason...
a. There is good reason to believe that Theophilus was a Roman
official - Lk 2:1-4; Ac 1:1
b. Some suggest Theophilus may have been in charge of Paul's case at Rome
c. Which might be why the book of Acts ends so abruptly with Paul
awaiting trial - Ac 28:30-31
d. With such detailed accounts of Paul's trials, it may have helped
Paul's release after his first imprisonment in Rome
Of course, with the Holy Spirit inspiring Luke and preserving his two
books for our benefit, we can see the providence of God at work as
Jesus' promises regarding Paul are fulfilled...
"...he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles,
kings, and the children of Israel."
- Ac 9:15
"But the following night the Lord stood by him and said, "Be of
good cheer, Paul; for as you have testified for Me in Jerusalem,
so you must also bear witness at Rome."
- Ac 23:11

Alleged Chronological Contradictions

Since the Bible begins at the Creation with Genesis—the book of
beginnings—and ends with the book of Revelation (which many scholars
believe was the last recorded book of the Bible), students of the
Scriptures often assume that the Bible was compiled chronologically.
Many students approach their reading of the Bible with the mind-set that
everything in Scripture is arranged “from A to Z.” Since Genesis
records what took place at the beginning of time, and it is the first
book of the Bible, then the rest of the Bible follows suit, right?
Actually, what the diligent student eventually finds is that the Bible
is not a book of strict chronology. All sixty-six books
of the Bible are not arranged in the order in which they were written.
Furthermore, all of the events contained within each book also are not
necessarily recorded chronologically.
Consider the following arrangement of some of the books in the Bible:

Although the books of Haggai and Zechariah have been placed near the
end of the Old Testament, these men prophesied while the events in the
book of Ezra were taking place (cf. Ezra 5:1; 6:14). Twenty books
separate Haggai and Zechariah from the book of Ezra, yet the events
recorded in each book were occurring at the same time. Obviously, these
books are not arranged in chronological order.

Even though 2 Chronicles appears before the book of Job, the events
recorded in Job took place long before those that are recorded in 2
Chronicles. In fact, if the Bible were a book of strict chronology, the
events recorded in Job would be placed somewhere within the book of
Genesis, likely somewhere after chapter nine (cf. Job 22:15-16;
42:16-17).

In the New Testament, one might assume that since 1 Thessalonians
comes after the book of Acts, that Luke penned Acts earlier than Paul
penned his first letter to the church at Thessalonica. The truth is,
however, 1 Thessalonians was written years before the book of Acts was
completed.

In addition to the sixty-six books of the Bible not being arranged
chronologically, inspired writers did not always record information in a
strictly chronological sequence within each book. Making the assumption
that the entire Bible was written chronologically hinders a proper
understanding of the text. As you will see throughout this article,
several alleged contradictions are resolved simply by acknowledging that
many times Bible writers did not record events in a strict sequential
order.

ONLY ONE LANGUAGE BEFORE BABEL?

According to some skeptics, Genesis 10 verses 5, 20, and 31 contradict
what is stated in Genesis 11:1. Supposedly, since Moses recorded that
the descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth spoke different languages in
Genesis 10, and yet he indicated that “the whole earth had one language
and one speech” in Genesis 11:1, then a discrepancy exists. Obviously,
before the dispersion of man at Babel, the whole Earth could not have
both many languages and only one language at the same time.
The explanation to this “problem” is that the events recorded in
Genesis 10-11 were not written chronologically. Genesis 10 is more of an
overview, while Genesis 11 speaks of one event within Genesis 10. Some
of the things recorded in chapter 10 occurred before the tower of Babel,
while others occurred sometime later. Consider that Genesis 2:5-25 does
not pick up where chapter 1 left off; rather, it provides more detailed
information about some of the events mentioned in chapter 1. (Whereas
Genesis 1 is arranged chronologically, Genesis 2 is organized
topically.) Several of the events in Genesis 38 involving Judah and
Tamar occurred while the things recorded in chapter 39 (and those that
follow) took place. Similar to a teacher who is telling her class a
story, and inserts information about something the main character did in
the past or will do in the future, Moses “jumped” ahead of himself at
times by inserting parenthetical material like that found in Genesis 10.
Aside from the languages mentioned in Genesis 10, there is another
“clue” in the text that reveals the events recorded in chapter 11
occurred before the descendants of Noah began speaking
different languages and spreading throughout the Earth. Genesis 10:25
mentions a man named Peleg (meaning “division”) who received such a name
because “in his days the earth was divided.” More than likely, this is a
reference to the confusion of languages at the tower of Babel described
in chapter 11. The “Earth” (i.e., people; cf. 11:1) divided when God
confused the languages (11:7-8). Thus, the division in Peleg’s day is
linked contextually to the linguistic segregation at Babel (Genesis
11:1-9).
When Genesis 10 and 11 are read with the understanding that not all
events are recorded chronologically, one sees clearly how the events
revealed in these chapters are entwined tightly with one another—so
tightly in fact that those who seek contradictions are doomed to fail.
Linguistically speaking, there was no pre-Babel confusion; only one
language was in existence (Genesis 11:1).

DID SAUL KNOW DAVID PRIOR TO GOLIATH’S DEATH?

Following the account of Samuel’s visit to Bethlehem to anoint David as
the future king of Israel, the book of 1 Samuel indicates that David
became the harp player and armor bearer for King Saul (16:14-23).
Subsequent to this information, the reader is told of David’s
magnificent triumph over Goliath (1 Samuel 17), which then is followed
by an “interrogation” by King Saul, who asked David, “Whose son are you,
young man?” (17:58). A general reading through the text of 1 Samuel
16-17 has led some Bible believers to question why Saul (it seems) knew
David, then did not know David, and then got to know him again.
Skeptics, likewise, have inquired about the consistency of this story
(see Morgan, 2003; Wells, 2001; “Inerrancy,” n.d.). Paul Tobin, in an
article titled “Internal Contradictions in the Bible,” summed up the
skeptic’s argument by stating that 1 Samuel 16 “clearly shows that
David...was known to Saul. Yet a little later, after David’s fight with
Goliath, Saul is made to inquire from his chief captain as to the
identity of the giant slayer (I Samuel 17:56). And he is again made to
inquire from David who he is, when he should have known this all along”
(2000). Allegedly, the Bible’s portrayal of Saul’s ignorance of David after Goliath’s death is proof of the Bible writers’ imperfection when penning the Scriptures.
First, it is imperative for one to recognize that, as with other Bible
passages, nowhere in 1 Samuel 16-17 are we told that all of these events
occurred in chronological order. Although throughout 1 Samuel, there is
a general, sequential progression, such does not demand that every
event recorded in the book must be laid out chronologically. In fact,
within chapter 17 there is evidence that this is not the case. For
example, the events recorded in 17:54 (i.e., David putting his armor in
his tent, and taking the head of Goliath to Jerusalem) postdate the
conversations mentioned in verses 55-58 (as verse 57 makes clear). More
precisely, verses 55-56 synchronize with verse 40, while events recorded
in verses 57-58 correlate well with the end of verse 51 (Youngblood,
1992, 3:703). And, regarding chapter 16, who can say for certain that
David was not already playing the harp for Saul before Samuel anointed
him? First Samuel 17:15 indicates that “David occasionally went and
returned from Saul to feed his father’s sheep at Bethlehem.” Perhaps it
was during one of these furloughs that he was anointed as the future
king of Israel (16:1-13). Unless the text clearly distinguishes one
event as occurring before or after another, a person cannot conclude for
certain the exact chronology of those events. Just because one
historical event recorded in the Bible precedes another, does not mean
that it could not have occurred at a later time (or vice versa). Truly,
the ancients were not as concerned about chronology as is the average
person in twenty-first-century America.
Aside from the fact that one cannot be certain about the exact sequence
of events recorded in 1 Samuel 16-17, several possible explanations
exist as to why Saul appeared not to recognize David after his triumphal
victory over Goliath. First, enough time could have lapsed so that
David’s appearance changed significantly since the last time he appeared
before King Saul. William M. Thomson, a missionary in Syria and
Palestine for nearly half of the nineteenth century, once described the
sudden changes in the physical development of Eastern youths in his book
titled The Land and the Book.

They not only spring into full-grown manhood as if by magic, but all
their former beauty disappears; their complexion becomes dark; their
features hard and angular.... I have often been accosted by such
persons, formerly intimate acquaintances, but who had suddenly grown
entirely out of my knowledge, nor could I without difficulty recognize
them (1859, 2:366).

Few would deny that young men can change quickly over a relatively
short period of time. Facial hair, increased height and weight, larger,
more defined muscles, darker skin, a deeper voice, as well as the
wearing of different apparel, may all factor into why a person may say
to someone that he or she knows, but has not seen for some time, “I
hardly recognized you. You’ve changed.” Surely, it is more than possible
that between the time David served Saul as a harpist, and the time he
slew Goliath, he could have experienced many physical changes that
prevented a “distressed” king from recognizing his former harpist.
A second reason Saul might have failed to recognize David is because he
may have lapsed into another unreliable mental state. Saul’s
intermittent deviation from normalcy is seen throughout the book of 1
Samuel (cf. 16:14-23; 18:9-12; 19:22-24; 22:6-19), and it is possible
17:54-58 is another allusion to his defective perception. In his
discussion of 1 Samuel 17, biblical commentator Robert Jamieson
mentioned this possibility, saying, “The king’s moody temper, not to say
frequent fits of insanity, would alone be sufficient to explain the
circumstance of his not recognizing a youth who, during the time of his
mental aberration, had been much near him, trying to soothe his
distempered soul” (1997).
Third, it could be that Saul did, in fact, remember David, but because
of jealousy over David’s momentous victory (cf. 1 Samuel 18:8-11), and
perhaps on hearing that Samuel had been to Bethlehem to anoint him as
the next king (1 Samuel 16:1-13), Saul simply wanted to act
like he did not know David. Such a scenario is not difficult to
envision. Today, a teacher or coach might inquire about a student whom
he or she already knows, yet in hopes of instilling more submission into
the arrogant teen, the faculty member acts somewhat aloof. One textual
indication that such may be the explanation of 1 Samuel 17:54-58 is that
Saul still referred to David, the bear-killing, lion-slaying,
Goliath-demolisher, as a “stripling” (Hebrew ‘elem—17:56, ASV) and “young man” (Hebrew na’ar—17:55,58).
Although these two words do not necessarily carry a belittling
connotation, neither designation seems very appropriate for a man who
had just tried on the armor of King Saul—a man once described as
“shoulders upward... taller than any of the people” (1 Samuel 9:2)—and
had just killed one of the fiercest enemies of Israel. Truly, Saul’s
supposed ignorance of David and his family may well have been a
“performance” instigated by what physician Herman van Praag once called,
“haughtiness fed by envy” (1986, 35:421).
Finally, one must realize that the text does not even actually say that Saul did not know David.
It only records that Saul asked, “Whose son is this youth?” (1 Samuel
17:55; cf. vss. 56,58). It is an assumption to conclude that Saul did
not recognize David. The king simply could have been inquiring about
David’s family. Since Saul had promised to reward the man who killed
Goliath by giving “his father’s house exemption from
taxes in Israel” (17:25), Saul might have been questioning David in
order to ensure the identity of David’s family. Furthermore, 18:1 seems
to presuppose an extended conversation between the two, which would
imply that Saul wanted even more information than just the name of
David’s father.
Truly, any of these possibilities could account for Saul’s examination
of David. The burden of proof is on the skeptic to show otherwise. As
respected law professor Simon Greenleaf concluded regarding the rule of
municipal law in relation to ancient writings:

Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository
or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise (1995, p. 16, emp. added).

Until skeptics logically negate the above possible solutions to the
questions surrounding 1 Samuel 16-17, and are able to prove beyond doubt
that the Bible writer made a genuine mistake, no reason to doubt the
integrity of the biblical text exists.

KINGLY CHRONOLOGY IN THE BOOK OF EZRA

As if the spelling and pronunciation of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes were
not problematic enough for the average Bible student, one must also
consider these Persian kings in light of the order in which they are
mentioned in the book of Ezra. According to history, the Persian kings
reigned in the following order: Cyrus (560-530 B.C.), Cambyses (530-522), Smerdis (522), Darius I (522-486), Ahasuerus (486-465), Artaxerxes I
(465-424), Darius II (423-405), and Artaxerxes II (405-358) [see Cook,
1983, p. 350]. The difficulty that presents itself in the book of Ezra
is that events surrounding letters which King Artaxerxes received from,
and wrote to, the enemies of the Jews (see Ezra 4:7-23) are mentioned before
the reign of Darius I (Ezra 4:24-6:15). If it is a proven fact that
Darius served as king before Artaxerxes, why is the kingship of Darius
recorded in the book of Ezra subsequent to the reign of Artaxerxes?
First, it needs to be pointed out that the Darius of the book of Ezra was
in fact Darius I and not Darius II. The second Darius lived too late in
history to have been contemporary with the rebuilding of the temple.
Thus, one cannot solve the question at hand simply by suggesting that
the Darius cited in Ezra was really Darius II, who lived after
Artaxerxes I.
Second, some may attempt to solve this difficulty by alleging that
Artaxerxes II was the king who reigned during the days of Ezra and
Nehemiah’s return to Jerusalem, while Artaxerxes I was the king
mentioned prior to Darius’ reign (Ezra 4:7-23). This solution is
unacceptable, however, since Artaxerxes II lived several years after the
events recorded in Ezra and Nehemiah.
So what is the answer? Why is the kingship of Darius recorded in the
book of Ezra following events connected with the kingship of
Artaxerxes—a king who is thought to have reigned after Darius? One
possible solution to this difficulty is that Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes of
Ezra 4:6,7-23 were respectively Cambyses (530-522) and Smerdis
(522)—kings of Persia (listed above) who reigned before Darius I. Since
Persian kings frequently had two or more names, it is not unfathomable
to think that Cambyses and Smerdis also may have gone by the names
Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes (see Wilson, 1996; see also Fausset, 1998).
Another explanation to this perceived dilemma is that the information
concerning the kings of Persia in Ezra 4 is grouped according to theme
rather than by chronology. Instead of having a record where everything
in chapter four is in sequential order, it is reasonable to conclude
that verses 6-23 serve as a parenthetical comment and that Ahasuerus and
Artaxerxes (4:6-7) are indeed Ahasuerus (486-465) and Artaxerxes I
(465-424) of history (rather than the aforementioned Cambyses and
Smerdis).
Bible students must keep in mind that just as there is more than one
way to write a book in the twenty-first century, ancient writers
frequently recorded events chronologically while occasionally inserting
necessary non-sequential material. It would have been natural for the
writer of the book of Ezra to follow a discussion of the problems
related to rebuilding the Jerusalem temple (4:1-5) with information on a similar resistance the Jews encountered while rebuilding the walls
of Jerusalem (4:6-23). Although the details in verses 6-23 initially
may puzzle our chronologically preconditioned mind-set, they actually
fit very well in their arrangement with the overall theme of the
chapter. In verse 24, the story picks up where it left off in verse 5.
The writer then returns to his focus on the problems with the rebuilding
of the temple, which lingered until “the second year of the reign of
Darius king of Persia” (Ezra 4:24).

WHEN DID JESUS CLEANSE THE TEMPLE?

One of the most popular alleged Bible discrepancies pertaining to
chronology—and one that skeptics are fond of citing in almost any
discussion on the inerrancy of Scripture—is whether or not Jesus
cleansed the temple early in His ministry, or near the end.
According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus cleansed the temple during
the final week leading up to His death on the cross (Matthew 21:12-13;
Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46). John, however, places his record of the
temple cleansing in chapter 2 of his gospel account, between Jesus’
first miracle (2:1-12) and His conversation with Nicodemus (3:1-21). How
should John’s gospel account be understood in light of the other three
writers placing the event near the end of Jesus’ ministry? Skeptics
question, “Did Jesus enter the temple and drive out the money changers
early in His ministry, or near the end?”
Most often, it seems, the explanation heard regarding this difficulty
is that there was only one temple cleansing—near the end of Jesus’
life—and John’s placement of this event at an earlier time is the result
of his “theological,” rather than “chronological,” approach to writing
his account of the life and teachings of Jesus. The problem with this
explanation is that, although overall John may have been a little less
concerned with chronology than were the other writers, a straightforward
reading of the text favors the position that this particular clearing
of the temple was not something that occurred near the end of Jesus’
life. The record of Jesus’ first miracle, beginning in John 2:1, begins
with the phrase, “On the third day....” This section ends with John
writing the words, “After this...” (2:12, Greek meta touto).
Following verse 12, John then begins his account of the temple cleansing
saying, “Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand...” (2:13). It
certainly would appear to be “out of the ordinary” for John to jump
ahead nearly three years in the life of Jesus to an event that occurred
in Jerusalem during the last week of His life, only then to backtrack to
a time prior to “the second sign Jesus did when He had come out of
Judea into Galilee” (John 4:54). Admittedly, John would not have erred
in writing about the temple cleansing early in his gospel account if the
Holy Spirit saw fit to mention the event at that time. (Perhaps this
would have been to show from the outset of Jesus’ ministry that He
“repudiated what was central to the Temple cults, and further that his
death and resurrection were critically important”—Morris, 1995, p. 167.)
A better explanation of this alleged contradiction exists, however:
There were two temple cleansings.
Why not? Who is to say that Jesus could not have cleansed the temple of
money-hungry, hypocritical Jews on two separate occasions—once earlier
in His ministry, and again near the end of His life as He entered
Jerusalem for the last time? Are we so naïve as to think that the temple
could not have been corrupted at two different times during the three
years of Jesus’ ministry? Jesus probably visited the temple several
times during the last few years of His life on Earth (especially when
celebrating the Passover—cf. John 2:13,23; 6:4; 11:55), likely finding
inappropriate things going on there more than once. Do churches in the
twenty-first century sometimes have problems that recur within a
three-year span? Have church leaders ever dealt with these problems in a
public manner multiple times and in similar ways? Of course. (“How soon
men forget the most solemn reproofs, and return to evil
practices”—Barnes, 1956, p. 196.)
What evidence does a person possess, which would force him to conclude
that Jesus cleansed the temple only once? There is none. While Matthew,
Mark, and Luke recorded a temple cleansing late in Jesus’ ministry, much
evidence exists to indicate that John recorded an earlier clearing of
the temple. It is logical to conclude that the extra details recorded in
John 2 are not simply supplemental facts (even though the writers of
the gospels did supplement each others’ writings fairly frequently).
Rather, the different details recorded by John likely are due to the
fact that we are dealing with two different temple cleansings. Only John
mentioned (1) the oxen and sheep, (2) the whip of cords, (3) the
scattering of the money, (4) Jesus’ command, “Take these things away,”
and (5) the disciples’ remembrance of Psalm 69:9: “Zeal for Your house
has eaten Me up” (2:17). Furthermore, John did not include Jesus’
quotation of Isaiah 56:7, which is found in all three of the other
accounts, and stands as a prominent part of their accounts of the temple
cleansing.
In view of the major differences in wording, in setting, and in time,
as well as the fact that, apart from the work of John the Baptizer,
nothing in the first five chapters of John’s gospel account is found in
Matthew, Mark, or Luke, “we will require more evidence than a facile
assumption that the two similar narratives must refer to the same event”
(Morris, 1995, p. 167). There is no chronological contradiction here.

WHEN DID THE TEMPLE VEIL TEAR?

A few years ago, a journal dedicated to revealing (alleged) Bible
errors petitioned its readers to submit their “best” biblical questions
and arguments that “they have found through actual experience to be
exceptionally effective vis-à-vis biblicists...and they will probably be
published for all to see and use” (McKinsey, 1988a, p. 6). The first
response printed in the journal (two months later) was from a man who
listed among his top five “Bible contradictions” a question of whether
or not the veil of the temple was torn in two “before” (Luke 23:44-46)
or “after” (Matthew 27:50-51) Jesus died on the cross. The skeptic
stated that this question was one of his favorites to ask because it
elicited “such ludicrous rebuttals from Christian apologists” (McKinsey,
1988b, p. 6).
Before taking the skeptic’s word at face value as to what these
scriptures actually say (or do not say), compare the passages for
yourself.

And Jesus cried again with a loud voice, and yielded up his spirit.
And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the
bottom (Matthew 27:50-51, ASV; cf. Mark 15:37-38).
And it was now about the sixth hour, and a darkness came over the
whole land until the ninth hour, the sun’s light failing: and the veil
of the temple was rent in the midst. And Jesus, crying with a loud
voice, said, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit”: and having
said this, he gave up the ghost (Luke 23:44-46).

Do you read anything in either Matthew or Luke’s account that says the
veil was torn “before” or “after” Jesus died (to use the skeptic’s own
words)? Granted, Luke did mention the rending of the veil before he
recorded that Jesus died, and Matthew mentioned it after recording His
death, but neither made any direct statements that would indicate
exactly when the rending took place. Simply because one Bible writer
recorded something before, or after, another writer does not mean that
either writer is attempting to establish a chronological time line.
Unless the skeptic can point to a verse by both writers that says these
events occurred in the precise order in which they are recorded, then no
case can be made for these two passages being incompatible.
Consider for a moment the “to do list” that many of us make either
daily or weekly. If someone peeked at your list and saw where you
crossed off the first four things, but the things that you had marked
off were not in the same order in which you accomplished them, would you
be guilty of lying (to yourself or to a colleague)? No. Imagine also
that you returned home after work one day, and told your children some
of the things you had accomplished at the office. Then, you told your
spouse the same things you told your children, only in a somewhat
different order. Would your children have any right to call you a liar
if they overheard this second conversation between you and your spouse?
Of course not. The only reason your children might be justified in
calling you a liar is if you had told both them and your spouse that
every event you rehearsed happened in the precise order in which you
mentioned them.
The only way a skeptic could prove that Matthew 27:50-51 and Luke
23:44-46 are contradictory is if he or she could establish that both
writers claimed to be writing all of these events in precisely the same
order in which they occurred. Since, however, the critic cannot prove
such intended chronology, he is left with another alleged and unproven
“contradiction.” Interesting, is it not, that this fairly simple
“problem” was listed as a “top-five” question with which to “stump” a
Christian?

TO GALILEE OR JERUSALEM?

Three times in the gospel of Matthew, the writer recorded where certain
disciples of Jesus were instructed to meet the Lord in Galilee after
His resurrection. During the Passover meal that Jesus ate the night of
His betrayal, He informed His disciples, saying, “After I have been
raised, I will go before you to Galilee” (Matthew 26:32). Three days
later, on the day of Jesus’ resurrection when Mary Magdalene and the
other women came to the empty tomb of Jesus, Matthew recorded how an
angel told them to notify the disciples of Jesus’ resurrection, and to
tell them exactly the same thing they were told three days earlier: “He
is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him” (28:7). Then,
only three verses later, as the women were on their way to inform the
disciples of Jesus’ resurrection and the message given to them by the
angel, Matthew recorded how Jesus appeared to them and said:
“Rejoice!... Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee,
and there they will see Me” (28:9-10). Sometime thereafter, “the eleven
disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had
appointed for them,” and “worshiped Him” (28:16-17).
According to Matthew, Jesus unquestionably wanted to meet with His
disciples in Galilee following His resurrection. However, some skeptics
and sincere Bible students have asked why, according to Luke, Jesus met
with His disciples in Jerusalem (24:33-43), and then commanded them to
stay there until they were “endued with power from on high” (24:49)?
Does Luke’s account contradict Matthew’s? According to one Bible
antagonist,

Matthew, Mark, and John have Jesus saying the disciples are to
rendezvous with him in Galilee, northern Israel, about three days
journey away. In contradiction to this, Luke’s two books—The Gospel of
Luke and The Book of Acts, have Jesus planning to rendezvous in
Jerusalem....
In the real world, people cannot be in two places at the same time,
and to claim otherwise is to be caught up in a contradiction.... The
Bible, like the cheating husband, has been caught in a contradiction,
exposed as a liar, and therefore can’t be trusted to tell the truth
(Smith, 1995).

Is the skeptic right? Is the Bible at fault in this instance? Does it
place the same people in two different places “at the same time”? Where
exactly did Jesus intend to meet with His disciples—in Galilee or
Jerusalem?
The truth is, Jesus met with His disciples in both places, but He did so at different
times. One of the reasons so many people allege that two or more Bible
passages are contradictory is because they fail to recognize that mere
differences do not necessitate a contradiction. For there to be a bona
fide contradiction, not only must one be referring to the same person,
place, or thing in the same sense, but the same time period
must be under consideration. If a person looks at a single door in the
back of a building and says, “That door is shut,” but also says, “That
door is open,” has he contradicted himself? Not necessarily. The door
may have been shut at one moment, but then opened the next by a strong
gust of wind. Time and chronology are important factors to consider when
dealing with alleged errors in the Bible.
Consider another illustration that more closely resembles the alleged
problem posed by the skeptic. At the end of every year, the professional
and managerial staff members at Apologetics Press travel to Birmingham,
Alabama, for a two-day, end-of-the-year meeting. Suppose the Executive
Director reminds us of this event three days beforehand, saying, “Don’t
forget about our meeting in Birmingham beginning Thursday,” and then
calls our homes on the morning of the meeting as another reminder,
saying, “Don’t forget about our meeting today in Birmingham.” Would
someone be justified in concluding that our Executive Director had lied
about the meeting if, on that Thursday morning, all of the staff members
at Apologetics Press (including the Executive Director) showed up at
work in Montgomery, and carried out some of the same tasks performed on
any other workday? Not at all. Actually, on the day the staff at
Apologetics Press leaves for the end-of-the-year meeting, it is common
for everyone to work until about 10:30 a.m., and then depart for the
meeting in Birmingham. If someone asked whether we went into work in Montgomery on Thursday, one honestly could say, “Yes.” If someone else asked if we traveled to Birmingham
on Thursday for a two-day meeting, again, one could truthfully say,
“Yes.” Both statements would be true. We met at both places on the same
day, only at different times.
Similarly, Jesus met with His disciples both in
Jerusalem and in Galilee, but at different times. On the day of His
resurrection, He met with all of the apostles (except Thomas) in
Jerusalem, just as both Luke and John recorded (Luke 24:33-43; John
20:19-25). Since Jesus was on the Earth for forty days following His
resurrection (cf. Acts 1:3), sometime between this meeting with His
apostles in Jerusalem and His ascension more than five weeks later,
Jesus met with seven of His disciples at the Sea of Tiberias in Galilee
(John 21:1-14), and later with all eleven of the apostles on a mountain
in Galilee that Jesus earlier had appointed for them (Matthew 28:16).
Sometime following these meetings in Galilee, Jesus and His disciples
traveled back to Judea, where He ascended into heaven from the Mount of
Olives near Bethany (Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1:9-12).
None of the accounts of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances
contradicts another. Rather, each writer supplemented what another left
out. Jesus may have appeared to the disciples a number of times during
the forty days on Earth after His resurrection (cf. 1 Corinthians
15:1-7), while the New Testament writers mentioned only the more
prominent instances in order to substantiate the fact of His
resurrection.
But, one may ask, “Why did Jesus command His apostles to ‘tarry in the city of Jerusalem’ on the day of His resurrection
until they were ‘endued with power from on high’ (Luke 24:49), if He
really wanted them to meet Him in Galilee?” Actually, it is an
assumption to assert that Jesus made the above statement on the same day
that He arose from the grave. As has been shown throughout this
article, Bible writers frequently moved from one subject to the next
without giving the actual time or the exact order in which something was
done or taught (cf. Luke 4:1-3; Matthew 4:1-11). In Luke 24, the writer
omitted the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in Galilee
(mentioned by both Matthew and John). However, notice that he never
stated that Jesus remained only in Jerusalem from the day He rose from the grave until the day He ascended into heaven.
According to Luke 24 verses 1,13,21,29, and 33, the events recorded in
the first forty-three verses of that chapter all took place on the very
day of Jesus’ resurrection. The last four verses of Luke 24 (vss.
50-53), however, took place (according to Luke) more than five weeks
later (cf. Acts 1:1-12). But what about verses 44-49? When were these
statements made? The truth is, no one can know for sure. Luke gives no
indication (as he did in the preceding verses) that this particular
section took place “on the first day of the week” (24:1), or on “the
third day” since Jesus’ crucifixion (24:21). All we know is that verses
44-49 took place sometime before He ascended into heaven (vss. 50-51).
Simply because Luke used the Greek conjunctive particle de [translated “and” (ASV), “then” (NKJV), and “now” (NASV)]
to begin verse 44, does not necessarily denote a close connection
between the two verses, but only a general continuation of the account
and a brief statement of what Jesus said. Even though many
twenty-first-century readers assume that the events recorded in Luke
24:44-49 occurred on the very day Jesus rose from the grave, the text
actually is silent on the matter.

WHEN DID PAUL GO TO JERUSALEM?

Three times in the book of Acts, the Bible student is informed that
after Saul’s conversion to Christ in Damascus, he departed for
Jerusalem. According to Acts chapter 9, Saul (also called Paul)
“increased all the more in strength” following his baptism into Christ,
and “confounded the Jews who dwelt in Damascus” (vs. 22). Then, when
“many days were past... the disciples took him by night and let him down
through the wall in a large basket” for fear of the Jews (vss. 23,25).
Immediately following these verses, the text reads: “And when Saul had come to Jerusalem,
he tried to join the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, and
did not believe that he was a disciple” (vs. 26, emp. added). Add to
these verses Paul’s respective statements to the Jerusalem mob (Acts
22:17) and to King Agrippa (Acts 26:20) regarding his journey from
Damascus to Jerusalem, and Bible students get the impression that
shortly after Paul’s conversion in Damascus, he journeyed to Jerusalem.
The problem with this reasoning is that Paul later wrote to the churches
of Galatia, and indicated that he “did not immediately...go up to
Jerusalem” following his conversion to Christ (Galatians 1:16). Rather,
he went to Arabia, back to Damascus, and then after three years he went up to Jerusalem (1:17-18). [NOTE:
“Arabia” generally is taken as a reference to the vast peninsula which
bears that name. Its northwestern boundaries reached almost to
Damascus—Pfeiffer, 1979, p. 203.] Concerned Bible students want to know
how these passages are harmonized? Did Paul go straight to Jerusalem
shortly after his conversion, or three years later?
Although Acts chapters 9, 22, and 26 all indicate that Paul went from
Damascus to Jerusalem after he became a Christian, one must realize that
none of these passages specifically says that Paul went straight from Damascus to Jerusalem. It only says, “And when
Saul had come to Jerusalem....” The writer of Acts gives no time
limitations here. In fact, nowhere in the New Testament will a person
find a statement denying that three years expired between Paul’s
conversion and his first trip to Jerusalem as a Christian. Although
rarely emphasized, what the Bible does not say
regarding Paul’s journeys is very important—it proves that the alleged
contradiction is based only on speculation, and not on a fair
representation of the Scriptures.
Some question why Paul did not mention his trip to Arabia to preach
among the Gentiles when he spoke to the Jewish mob in Jerusalem, and
later to King Agrippa. Was it not a vital piece of information? Did he
just “forget” about this part of his life? Actually, Paul had a good
reason for not mentioning his trip to Arabia—he was speaking to Jews who
were “seeking to kill him” because of his dealings with Gentiles (Acts
21:28-31). As a way of comparison, we can understand why a college
football player who transferred from a rival school may not talk to his
current teammates about his former college experiences, or why a new
sales representative who transferred from a competing company may
refrain from talking to current customers and/or coworkers about the
three years he spent with the rival company. In a similar way, it did
not aid Paul’s cause to mention at the very outset of his speech that
some of his first work for the Lord was done among the Gentiles. (The
Jews hated Paul for his dealings with the Gentiles. The events recorded
in Acts 21 alone are proof of such hatred.) Certain situations simply
warrant silence on a subject, rather than an exhaustive detailing of
historical facts. Paul did not lie (to the Jerusalem mob or to King
Agrippa) about his past experience working with the Gentiles for a time;
he merely omitted this piece of information in his
efforts to show his fellow Jews that the very people among whom he had
been a loyal persecutor were those to whom he now preached.
The twenty-first-century reader must remember that a Bible writer (or a
speaker whom a Bible writer quotes) may be writing/speaking from one
point of view, and raise a point that may not be made in another
situation. Neither Paul in his speeches, nor Luke in penning the book of
Acts to Theophilus, saw a need to mention Paul’s journey to Arabia. In
his letter to the churches of Galatia, however, Paul was dealing with
Judaizers who taught that one had to keep the Law of Moses to be saved,
and who wished to discredit Paul as an apostle. Paul thus wrote to tell
them that after his conversion, he preached among the Gentiles for an
extended amount of time before ever meeting with
another apostle. Paul did not hurry off to Jerusalem to get instruction
and approval from the Twelve. In defense of his apostolic credentials to
the churches of Galatia, Paul mentioned his delayed journey to
Jerusalem in order to emphasize (among other things) his genuine
apostleship, whose message and authority came from Almighty God, and not
from the twelve apostles, or any other person.

CONCLUSION

The burden of proof is on the Bible critic to verify his allegations.
Although one of the skeptics quoted earlier compared the Bible to a
“cheating husband” who “has been caught in a contradiction,” one must
remember how equally deplorable it is to draw up charges of marital
unfaithfulness when there is no proof of such. In reality, the Bible
should be likened to a faithful husband who has been wrongfully accused
of infidelity by prejudiced, overbearing skeptics whose case is based
upon unproven assumptions.
The apologist does not have to know the exact solution to an alleged
contradiction; he need only show one or more possibilities of
harmonization. We act by this principle in the courtroom, in our
treatment of various historical books, as well as in everyday-life
situations. It is only fair, then, that we show the Bible the same
courtesy by exhausting the search for possible harmony between passages
before pronouncing one or both accounts false.

Where is God when I Hurt?

No
doubt many people over the centuries and throughout the world have
rejected belief in the one true God on the grounds that they have
witnessed or experienced great pain and suffering. Perhaps the loss of a
loved one, or some other tragedy in their life, made them resentful and
bitter toward God and life. By blaming God, somehow the pain seemed
more bearable. But the Bible speaks definitively on this matter. And
only the Bible can give us an accurate explanation for the existence of
pain and suffering on the Earth.
Many great men and women in Bible history have preceded us in their
attempts to live faithfully for God in the face of great hardship. Being
human beings just like us, they faced the daily struggle to overcome
self, sin, and Satan. They, too, had to cope with the stress and strain
of life. They, too, had to endure hurt. We can learn from their behavior
(Romans 15:4). If we will consider their lives and their reaction to
the difficulties of life, we can receive from their example the
necessary strength to endure. When we observe how they were mistreated
and persecuted, and how they coped with their hurt, we can draw from
them the needed encouragement to endure and achieve the victory.

STEPHEN

For example, in his efforts to live the Christian life, Stephen found
himself standing before the highest legislative body of the Jewish
nation—the 71 members of the Sanhedrin that included the High Priest as
president. He was on trial for his life. Instead of offering a legal
defense, he preached a sermon. He surveyed Israelite history,
spotlighting their behavioral propensity for apostasy, and then he drove
his sermon home with this grand conclusion:

You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always
resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you. Which of the
prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who
foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the
betrayers and murderers, who have received the law by the direction of
angels and have not kept it (Acts 7:51-53).

Here was this great man of God, on trial for his life, and yet no
speech could ever be less calculated to gain one’s acquittal. Instead of
defending himself to achieve his release, Stephen’s sermon placed his accusers on trial before the bar of God!
Their reaction? They were cut to the heart and gritted their teeth at
him. They began yelling at the top of their lungs while they stopped up
their ears. Then they ran at him, dragged him outside the city, and
threw rocks at him until they beat the life from his body. Did Stephen
experience great hurt? Yes, even unto death! Where was God?
Right there with him! In fact, by the miraculous intervention of God,
he was able to gaze upward into heaven itself and see the glory of God,
and Jesus standing at His right hand. When you and I hurt, God and
Christ are still there!

ELIJAH

Then there was Elijah (1 Kings 19). Upon hearing that Jezebel had “put
out a contract” on his life, he literally “ran for his life” into the
desert and hid in a cave. God spoke to him directly and said, “Elijah,
what are you doing here?” His response showed a heart filled with
desperation and despair when he insisted that he had been very zealous
for the Lord, despite the fact that the Israelites had forsaken the
covenant, torn down God’s altars, and killed God’s prophets. He felt he
was the only one left—and they were trying to kill him, too! Here was a
man who felt the crushing pressure of persecution. Here was a man who
was hurting.
Yet, God had provided him with appropriate victories in life. When he
went to meet his king (1 Kings 18), he was accused of making trouble for
God’s people. But the truth was, it was Ahab who troubled Israel by
forsaking God’s commands. He then challenged the hundreds of false
prophets to meet him in a contest on Mt. Carmel to determine once and
for all who is God. When those false prophets tried all day long to
evoke a response from their god to ignite the sacrifice, they failed
miserably. Elijah then gathered all the people around him as he repaired
the altar of the Lord. Placing wood upon the altar and carefully
arranging the sacrificial meat upon the wood, he ordered it to be doused
with water, thoroughly saturating the entire sacrificial site. Then he
offered a simple prayer to the God of heaven, which elicited fire that
roared down out of the atmosphere, consuming the sacrifice, the wood,
the altar stones, the water, and even the dust! That caused God’s people
to get their thinking straight, and Elijah ordered the execution of the
false prophets. Was Elijah a man who had to endure hurt? Yes! But God
was with him!

DANIEL

And what of Daniel? Deported from his homeland while still a youth, he
was placed in an unfriendly foreign culture and forced to learn the
language and literature of the Babylonians. When his political enemies
became jealous over his success and favor with the king, they finagled
the law to get Daniel in trouble with the legal system. His crime?
Praying to the one true God regularly! His punishment? Death by being
thrown to lions. Talk about hurt! Yet, God was with him and stopped the
mouths of the lions (Hebrews 11:33). Though he spent the night in the
lions’ den, he was retrieved the next morning safe and sound. His
accusers were substituted in his place, and the Bible says the lions
tore them in pieces before their bodies hit the ground (Daniel 6:24).
Did Daniel have to face hurt in life? Yes! But God was with him!

AMOS

Then there is Amos. He had no intention of being used by God as a
prophet (Amos 7:14). He was spending his life tending sheep and sycamore
trees that produced a fruit that had to be manually pierced to ripen.
But when God commissioned him to travel from his home in southern
Palestine to northern Palestine, and to present God’s words to those
people, he went. But he was not well received. When he announced that
Israel would be laid waste and the king himself would die by the sword,
you can imagine the reaction. Amaziah the priest accused him of
conspiracy to overthrow the government, and tried to intimidate him into
leaving the country immediately. Amos responded by making clear that he
was no prophet by profession, and would have been content to do the
humble work he performed in his private life. But God had instructed him
to prophesy, and that’s what he was going to do. Not only would Israel
fall, but Amaziah’s own children would be killed and his own wife turned
into a prostitute (Amos 7:17). Was Amos placed in a situation that
brought hurt into his life? Criticism? Opposition? Yes! But God saw him
through his hurt!

MICAIAH

Micaiah, too, faced the pressures and hurts of life. When the king of
Israel and the king of Judah met to discuss the possibility of a mutual
military campaign, the king of Judah wanted some reassurance from God
that their efforts would be successful. Ahab paraded his 400 false
prophets before Jehoshaphat, and the “yes men” offered the desired
reassurance. But Jehoshaphat was uneasy and wanted some more credible
indication. Ahab admitted that Micaiah could be consulted—“but I hate
him, because he does not prophesy good concerning me, but evil” (1 Kings
22:8).
Micaiah was immediately summoned. The two kings sat upon their thrones,
listening to the false prophets. One false prophet, Zedekiah, even
dramatized his reassurance by holding up an iron replica of some ox
horns and declaring that the kings would gore the Syrians to death.
Meanwhile, the officer who had been sent to bring Micaiah to them, urged
him to go along with the other prophets and reassure the king. But
Micaiah said he would say what the Lord told him to say, and when
questioned by the king, he sarcastically suggested that they go right
ahead. When pressed to get serious, Micaiah predicted that the army
would be scattered and Ahab would be killed. He then described how a
lying spirit was directing the advice of the false prophets—whereupon
Zedekiah walked over, slapped Micaiah across the face, and taunted him
with the words, “Which way did the spirit from the Lord go from me to
speak to you?” Micaiah said he would find out on that day of military
calamity when he would run and hide in an inner chamber.
Micaiah was sent to prison for his courageous stand, and was placed on
bread and water. But when the battle ensued, Ahab disguised himself for
the specific purpose of avoiding Micaiah’s prediction. The Syrian king
even assembled a “swat” team of 32 assassins, and charged them to avoid
all conflict and concentrate solely on getting Ahab. But God did not use
them to accomplish His prediction. Instead, the Bible informs us that a
nameless archer drew back his bow and let his arrow fly “at random,”
that is, aiming at no one in particular—no doubt just excited in the
heat of battle. Out of all those soldiers who were occupying the
battlefield, that arrow found its way to Ahab. And out of all the places
on Ahab’s armor, that arrow struck in the crevice between the joints of
the armor and punctured his wicked heart. His blood pooled in the
bottom of his chariot and he was dead by sundown. Micaiah had to face
hurt—but God was with him, and he lived to see the demise of those who
inflicted the hurt.

JOHN

The Elijah of the New Testament faced the same thing. He had to stand
up and confront the Pharisees and Sadducees face to face, label them
“vipers,” insist upon repentance, and warn them of the wrath and
unquenchable fire to come (Matthew 3:7-12). When he had the courage to
inform the king that his marriage was unacceptable to God, the king’s
illicit wife held it against John and wanted him eliminated. She got her
way, and the executioner cut off John’s head, leaving only his headless
corpse for his disciples to bury (Mark 6:14-29). Did John face hurt?
Yes—even unto death! But was God with John? Jesus, Himself, said,
“Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen
one greater than John the Baptist” (Matthew 11:11). God knows our hurt,
and He is there.

PAUL

Paul was a model of persecution. The list of his persecutions is
lengthy (2 Corinthians 11:24-28). He received the customary 40 lashes
(Deuteronomy 25:1-3) from the Jews on five separate occasions. Three
times he received the customary Roman beating with rods (Acts 16:23). He
was even stoned (Acts 14:19). Three times he went through the harrowing
experience of being shipwrecked (e.g., Acts 27:41ff.), and even drifted
on the ocean all night and all day. He experienced the fatigue of
frequent travels, the perils of waters, robbers, angry countrymen, and
Gentiles. He suffered in the city and in the desert, in the sea and
among false brethren. He went through weariness, toil, sleeplessness,
hunger, thirst, fasting, cold, and nakedness. He was a hounded, hunted,
harassed, and hurt man! He experienced the insecurity and fright that
comes from vicious opposition. But the Lord said to him, “Don’t be
afraid, but speak, and don’t keep silent, for I am with you, and no one
will attack you to hurt you” (Acts 18:9-10). When he faced the hurtful
pain of a “thorn in the flesh” to keep him humble, the Lord reassured
him—even in the midst of his suffering—“My grace is sufficient for you”
(2 Corinthians 12:9). He was able to conclude: “I take pleasure in
infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses,
for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Corinthians
12:10). Infirmity, distress, reproach, persecution? These things hurt! But through it all—we are assured of the help of our Lord!

JESUS

But the supreme example of suffering and hurt is that of Jesus Christ
Himself. Besides the lack of physical comforts (Matthew 8:20) and the
frequent mistreatment He endured throughout His earthly ministry,
finally He was seized by an angry mob carrying swords and clubs. He was
positioned before a kangaroo court to face the accusations of false
witnesses. He encountered the tirade of a raging High Priest who accused
Him of blasphemy, and He had to hear the council’s condemnation to
death. He had people spit in His face, beat Him, and strike Him with the
palms of their hands as they mocked and taunted Him. He was bound and
taken before the Roman authorities where He experienced the further
humiliation of a jeering crowd who chose a notorious criminal over Him
for release. He then suffered further indignities at the hands of Roman
soldiers who stripped Him, pressed a crown of thorns down upon His head,
spit on Him, and struck Him on the head with the reed they had made Him
hold as a scepter. Finally, He endured the excruciating, horrifying
death inflicted by a Roman cross, as passers-by blasphemed Him, shook
their heads at Him, and taunted Him to save Himself. Even the robbers
who were crucified with Him reviled Him. Where was God? Where is God
when you or I hurt? Where is God when a Christian loses a child? He is
right where He was when He lost His own Son.
Whatever suffering or hurt you or I may experience, pales in comparison
to the hurt endured by our Lord. We need to remember: Sunday followed
Friday. His suffering unto death provided an incredible result that you
and I may share. “God commended His love toward us in that while we were
yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). Must we hurt?

For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us,
leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: “Who committed
no sin, Nor was guile found in His mouth”; who, when He was reviled, did
not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but
committed Himself to Him who judges righteously (1 Peter 2:21-23).

In fact, Jesus was “made a little lower than the angels, for the
suffering of death…that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for
everyone” and, in so doing, He is able to “bring many sons to glory…for
in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those
who are tempted” (Hebrews 2:9-10,18). Jesus suffered great hurt and
harm, but He endured for us. May we endure for Him! We can and must be
like Him. “Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will
suffer persecution” (2 Timothy 3:12).

CONCLUSION

In Revelation 19, we are treated to a spectacular portrait. Heaven
opens and out comes a white horse whose rider has three names: “Faithful
and True;” “The Word of God;” and “King of kings and Lord of lords.” In
righteousness, He judges and makes war. His eyes are flames of fire. He
wears on His head multiple crowns, and his clothing has been dipped in
blood. Protruding out of His mouth is a sharp sword. He rides at the
head of the mounted cavalry of heaven. The Christians who were first
given this awesome picture had been undergoing intense, excruciating
pain and suffering. But neither they nor we can visualize this marvelous
scene without coming to at least one undeniable conclusion: God knows
when we hurt and experience untold pain and suffering; but He is there,
He is with us, He will not abandon us, and we must continue to trust
Him.

The Passion and Antisemitism: Who Murdered Jesus?

The furor surrounding Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of the Christ
preceded by many months the release of the movie on February 25. The
official Web site states: “Passion is a vivid depiction of the last 12
hours of Jesus Christ’s life” (Passion Web site). Special emphasis is
placed on the physical suffering Christ endured. Throughout the film,
the language spoken is the first-century Jewish language, Aramaic,
except when the Romans speak their language, i.e., Latin (Novak, 2003).
Gibson, who both produced and directed the film, sank $25 million of his
own money into the venture.
Much of the stir over the film stems from the role of the Jews in their
involvement in Christ’s crucifixion. In fact, outcries of
“anti-Semitism” have been vociferous, especially from representatives of
the Anti-Defamation League. Their contention is that Jews are depicted
in the film as “bloodthirsty, sadistic, money-hungry enemies of God” who
are portrayed as “the ones responsible for the decision to crucify
Jesus” (as quoted in Hudson, 2003; cf. Zoll, 2003). The fear is that the
film will fuel hatred and bigotry against Jews. A committee of nine
Jewish and Catholic scholars unanimously found the film to project a
uniformly negative picture of Jews (“ADL and Mel…”). The Vatican early
avoided offering an endorsement of the film by declining to make an
official statement (“Vatican Has Not…”; cf. “Mel Gibson’s…”). This
action is to be expected in view of the conciliatory tone manifested by
Vatican II (Abbott, 1955, pp. 663-667). Even Twentieth Century Fox
decided not to participate in the distribution of the film (“20th Decides…”; cf. “Legislator Tries…”; O’Reilly…”).
Separate from the controversy generated by Gibson’s film, the more
central issue concerns to what extent the Jewish generation of the first
century contributed to, or participated in, the death of Christ. If the
New Testament is the verbally inspired Word of God, then it is an
accurate and reliable report of the facts, and its depiction of the
details surrounding the crucifixion are normative and final. That being
the case, how does the New Testament represent the role of the Jews in
the death of Christ?
A great many verses allude to the role played by the Jews, especially
the leadership, in the death of Jesus. For some time prior to the
crucifixion, the Jewish authorities were determined to oppose Jesus.
This persecution was aimed at achieving His death:

So all those in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were
filled with wrath, and rose up and thrust Him out of the city; and they
led Him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw Him down over the cliff (Luke 4:28-30, emp. added).
Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He
not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father,
making Himself equal with God (John 5:18-19, emp. added).
After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for He did not want to walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill Him… “Did not Moses give you the law, yet none of you keeps the law? Why do you seek to kill Me?” (John 7:1-2,19, emp. added).
“I know that you are Abraham's descendants, but you seek to kill Me,
because My word has no place in you. I speak what I have seen with My
Father, and you do what you have seen with your father.” They answered
and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you
were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this.” Then they took up stones to throw at Him;
but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the
midst of them, and so passed by (John 8:37-41,59, emp. added).
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him…. Therefore they sought again to seize Him, but He escaped out of their hand (John 10:31-32,39, emp. added).
Then, from that day on, they plotted to put Him to death…. Now
both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a command, that if
anyone knew where He was, he should report it, that they might seize Him
(John 11:53, 57, emp. added).
And He was teaching daily in the temple. But the chief priests, the scribes, and the leaders of the people sought to destroy Him, and were unable to do anything; for all the people were very attentive to hear Him (Luke 19:47-48, emp. added).
And the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might kill Him, for they feared the people (Luke 22:2, emp. added).
Then the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders of the people
assembled at the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and
plotted to take Jesus by trickery and kill Him (Matthew 26:3-4, emp. added).

These (and many other) verses demonstrate unquestionable participation
of the Jews in bringing about the death of Jesus. One still can hear the
mournful tones of Jesus Himself, in His sadness over the Jews rejecting
Him: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones
those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children
together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not
willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate” (Matthew 23:37-39). He
was referring to the destruction of Jerusalem and the demise of the
Jewish commonwealth at the hands of the Romans in A.D. 70. Read carefully His unmistakable allusion to the reason for this holocaustic event:

Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, “If you
had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make
for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For days will
come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you,
surround you and close you in on every side, and level you, and your
children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one
stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your
visitation” (Luke 19:41-44).

He clearly attributed their national demise to their stubborn rejection of Him as the predicted Messiah, Savior, and King.
Does the Bible, then, indicate that a large percentage, perhaps even a
majority, of the Jews of first century Palestine was “collectively
guilty” for the death of Jesus? The inspired evidence suggests so.
Listen carefully to the apostle Paul’s assessment, keeping in mind that
he, himself, was a Jew—in fact, “a Hebrew of the Hebrews” (Philippians
3:5; cf. Acts 22:3; Romans 11:1; 2 Corinthians 11:22). Speaking to
Thessalonian Christians, he wrote:

For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are
in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from
your own countrymen, just as they did from the Judeans, who killed both the Lord Jesus
and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please
God and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles
that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their
sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost (1 Thessalonians
2:14-16, emp. added).

This same apostle Paul met with constant resistance from fellow Jews.
After he spoke at the Jewish synagogue in Antioch of Pisidia, a crowd of
people that consisted of nearly the whole city gathered to hear him
expound the Word of God. Notice the reaction of the Jews in the crowd:

But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy; and
contradicting and blaspheming, they opposed the things spoken by Paul.
Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the
word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and
judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the
Gentiles….” But the Jews stirred up the devout and prominent women and
the chief men of the city, raised up persecution against Paul and
Barnabas, and expelled them from their region (Acts 13:45-46,50-51).

Paul met with the same resistance from the general Jewish public that
Jesus encountered—so much so that he wrote to Gentiles concerning Jews:
“Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake” (Romans 11:28).
He meant that the majority of the Jews had rejected Christ and
Christianity. Only a “remnant” (Romans 11:5), i.e., a small minority,
embraced Christ.
What role did the Romans play in the death of Christ? It certainly is
true that Jesus was crucified on a Roman cross. First-century Palestine
was under the jurisdiction of Rome. Though Rome permitted the Jews to
retain a king in Judea (Herod), the Jews were subject to Roman law in
legal matters. In order to achieve the execution of Jesus, the Jews had
to appeal to the Roman authorities for permission (John 18:31). A simple
reading of the verses that pertain to Jewish attempts to acquire this
permission for the execution are clear in their depiction of Roman
reluctance in the matter. Pilate, the governing procurator in Jerusalem,
sought literally to quell and diffuse the Jewish efforts to kill Jesus.
He called together the chief priests, the rulers, and the people and
stated plainly to them:

“You have brought this Man to me, as one who misleads the people. And
indeed, having examined Him in your presence, I have found no fault in
this Man concerning those things of which you accuse Him; no, neither
did Herod, for I sent you back to him; and indeed nothing deserving of
death has been done by Him. I will therefore chastise Him and release
Him” (for it was necessary for him to release one to them at the feast).
And they all cried out at once, saying, “Away with this Man, and
release to us Barabbas”—who had been thrown into prison for a certain
rebellion made in the city, and for murder. Pilate, therefore, wishing
to release Jesus, again called out to them. But they shouted, saying,
“Crucify Him, crucify Him!” Then he said to them the third time, “Why,
what evil has He done? I have found no reason for death in Him. I will
therefore chastise Him and let Him go.” But they were insistent,
demanding with loud voices that He be crucified. And the voices of these
men and of the chief priests prevailed. So Pilate gave sentence that it
should be as they requested. And he released to them the one they
requested, who for rebellion and murder had been thrown into prison; but
he delivered Jesus to their will (Luke 23:14-25).

It is difficult to conceptualize the level of hostility possessed by
the Jewish hierarchy, and even by a segment of the Jewish population,
toward a man who had done nothing worthy of such hatred. It is
incredible to think that they would clamor for the release of a known
murderer and insurrectionist, rather than allow the release of Jesus.
Yes, the Roman authority was complicit in the death of Jesus. But Pilate
would have had no interest in pursuing the matter if the Jewish leaders
and crowd had not pressed for it. In fact, he went to great lengths to
perform a symbolic ceremony in order to communicate the fact that he was
not responsible for Jesus’ death. He announced to the multitude: “I am
innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it” (Matthew
27:24). Technically, the Romans cannot rightly be said to be ultimately
responsible. If the Jews had not pressed the matter, Pilate never would
have conceded to having Him executed. The apostle Peter made this point
very clear by placing the blame for the crucifixion of Jesus squarely on
the shoulders of Jerusalem Jews:

Men of Israel…the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our
fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied
in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go. But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses (Acts 3:12-16, emp. added).

Notice that even though the Romans administered the actual crucifixion,
Peter pointedly stated to his Jewish audience, not only that Pilate
wanted to release Jesus, but that the Jews (“you”)—not the
Romans—“killed the Prince of life.”
Does God lay the blame for the death of Christ on the Jews as an ethnic group? Of course not. Though the generation of Jews who were contemporary to Jesus cried out to Pilate, “His blood be on us and on our children”
(Matthew 27:25, emp. added), it remains a biblical fact that “the son
shall not bear the guilt of the father” (Ezekiel 18:20). A majority of a
particular ethnic group in a particular geographical locale at a
particular moment in history may band together and act in concert to
perpetrate a social injustice. But such an action does not indict all
individuals everywhere who share that ethnicity. “For there is no
partiality with God” (Romans 2:11), and neither should there be with any
of us.
In fact, the New Testament teaches that ethnicity should have nothing
to do with the practice of the Christian religion—which includes how we
see ourselves, as well as how we treat others. Listen carefully to
Paul’s declarations on the subject: “There is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for
you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are
Abraham's seed” (Galatians 3:28-29, emp. added). Jesus obliterated the
ethnic distinction between Jew and non-Jew:

For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken
down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the
enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as
to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and
that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross,
thereby putting to death the enmity (Ephesians 2:14-17).

In the higher sense, neither the Jews nor the Romans crucified Jesus.
Oh, they were all complicit, including Judas Iscariot. But so were we.
Every accountable human being who has ever lived or ever will live has
committed sin that necessitated the death of Christ—if atonement was to
be made so that sin could be forgiven. Since Jesus died for the sins of
the whole world (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2), every sinner is responsible for
His death. But that being said, the Bible is equally clear that in
reality, Jesus laid down His own life for humanity: “I am the good
shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep…. Therefore My
Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No
one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay
it down, and I have power to take it again” (John 10:11,17-18; cf.
Galatians 1:4; 2:20; Ephesians 5:2; 1 John 3:16). Of course, the fact
that Jesus was willing to sacrifice Himself on the behalf of humanity
does not alter the fact that it still required human beings, in this
case first-century Jews, exercising their own free will to kill Him. A
good summary passage on this matter is Acts 4:27-28—“for of a truth in
this city against thy holy Servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both
Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,
were gathered together, to do whatsoever thy hand and thy council
foreordained to come to pass.”

CONCLUSION

The movie is, indeed, graphic. Despite various inaccuracies and
additions that usually come with an attempt to transfer a biblical
narrative to the screen, The Passion of the Christ nevertheless
does a credible job of reenacting the excruciating torment that Jesus
endured by undergoing Roman scourging and crucifixion. The film fosters a
renewed appreciation of the suffering that Jesus subjected Himself to
in behalf of sinful humanity.
Anti-Semitism is sinful and unchristian. Those who crucified Jesus are
to be pitied. Even Jesus said concerning them: “Father, forgive them,
for they do not know what they do” (Luke 23:34). But we need not deny or
rewrite history in the process. We now live in a post-Christian
culture. If Gibson would have produced a movie depicting Jesus as a
homosexual, the liberal, “politically correct,” anti-Christian forces
would have been the first to defend the undertaking under the guise of
“artistic license,” “free speech,” and “creativity.” But dare to venture
into spiritual reality by showing the historicity of sinful man
mistreating the Son of God, and the champions of moral degradation and
hedonism raise angry, bitter voices of protest. The irony of the ages
is—He died even for them.

Jurassic Park—The New Orthodoxy?

by

Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.

Q.

In the movie Jurassic Park, scientists used frog DNA to recreate dinosaurs? Could such a feat actually be accomplished in real life, or is this just “Hollywood magic”?A.
Dinosaurs roam a private island off the coast of Costa Rica. Moats and high voltage fences keep the vicious Tyrannosaurus away from its natural prey, and their human keepers. A giant Apatosaurus strolls gracefully across the fields, while an ostrich-like Gallimimus pauses to drink from a lake. This is Jurassic Park, a dinosaur zoo positioned in the theme-park market.
Yet before it has opened to the public, things begin to go awry. There
are the usual budget overruns, but there are also accidents among the
workers. The investors get nervous, and send a delegation of scientists
to inspect the park. They are joined by two of the owner’s
grandchildren, and so begins an exciting adventure packed with teeth and
claws.
The movie Jurassic Park broke box-office records. Promotion and
merchandising reached heights all their own. Once again, Steven
Spielberg delivered thrilling, wonder-filled entertainment.
No one has missed the educational impact of this movie. Kids love
dinosaurs, right? Of course, many of them will not see the movie because
it gets very intense and graphic. But parents and teachers can still
use the deluge of Jurassic Park paraphernalia to teach children
all about dinosaurs. With such an intense interest, even little ones can
master basic paleontology, nomenclature, and dinosaur biology.Jurassic Park rode on the crest of a dinosaur craze that has
been going on for many years now. The movie, and countless books on the
subject, teach that dinosaurs were the product of evolution, and that
millions of years separated man and dinosaurs. Fortunately, creationists
can counter with good materials that teach a biblical perspective
(e.g., Taylor, 1987; Gish, 1992). However, the movie warrants attention
because it made such special claims.

CAN DINOSAURS BE CLONED?

First, we have to remember that Jurassic Park is science
fiction. As one reviewer commented, the science “is only stuffing to
ease the suspension of disbelief ” (Gee, 1993). The fantasy behind the
story is that scientists can clone dinosaurs. This was explained quite
well in the movie, although the book by Michael Crichton (1990)
discussed the process in more detail.
It began millions of years ago with mosquitoes sucking on dinosaur
blood. Some of the pesky insects landed on trees, where they were
trapped by sticky resin. After many years, the resin hardened into
amber, thus preserving the insects and their meal. It is then up to
scientists at Jurassic Park to extract the stomach contents and isolate
the dinosaur. However, the DNA is not intact, so they use sophisticated equipment to fill the gaps. Where this does not work, they use DNA from other organisms, such as frogs. Finally, they insert the completed DNA sequence into crocodile ova, and the dinosaurs are allowed to grow in artificial eggshells.
This whole scheme brings up some important questions. For example, can
scientists clone dinosaurs? The answer right now is “No.” The reason is
that dinosaurs, like humans, are very complicated organisms. Scientists
could clone individual cells or portions of DNA, but they will need a lot more than mummified blood cells. As David Grimaldi quipped, trying to reconstruct the whole dinosaur DNA sequence “would be like trying to reconstruct Tolstoy’s War and Peace from a gigantic vat of alphabet soup” (1993, 102[6]:61).
Has anyone actually found dinosaur DNA? Not yet, but someone may announce a discovery in the near future. Already, scientists believe they have recovered DNA
from insects, plants, pollen, mushrooms, and microscopic creatures
entombed in amber. But if this amber is millions of years old, how could
something as fragile as DNA survive for so long? Tomas Lindahl (1993) is so skeptical about recovering DNA from ancient amber that he is willing to suggest that labs are analyzing samples contaminated with modern DNA!
The other alternative, and the one consistent with a biblical view of
the world, is that the amber really is only a few thousand years old.
Further, organisms preserved in amber are strikingly similar to their
living counterparts (see DeSalle, 1992; Cano, et al., 1993; H.N. Poinar,
et al., 1993; G.O. Poinar, et al., 1993). This suggests that general
stability, not large-scale change, is the dominating feature of life on
Earth.
One last point bears mentioning while we are on the issue of cloning.
As stated earlier, Jurassic Park scientists patched dinosaur genes with DNA from frogs. This was a reasonable thing to do, we are told, because all animals have a common ancestry, and so their DNA
is very similar (Crichton, 1990, p. 209). However, similarity can also
mean common design. Most cells carry out basic tasks that have to do
with perpetuating life. Also, we would expect to find similarities in
cells that perform the same function in different animals. Evolutionists
are quick to point out that our DNA is 99% the same as chimpanzee DNA. But this does not explain why we are flying space shuttles, while they have climbed little higher than the tree tops.

DID BIRDS EVOLVE FROM DINOSAURS?

One recurrent theme in the movie, and certainly one emphasized in the
book, is that birds evolved from dinosaurs. This theory, developed by
John Ostrom, is especially favored among paleontologists (Norman, 1991,
p. 137). Ornithologists, however, are not convinced by this theory. They
count all the differences between birds and dinosaurs, while Ostrom
counts all the similarities.
The point is that evolutionists cannot agree on the origin of birds,
and neither paleontologists nor ornithologists can account for something
as fundamental as the feather.

CONCLUSION

Jurassic Park exerted great influence because it was such a
juggernaut of a movie. Overnight, speculation became conventional
wisdom. However, the idea of finding and cloning dinosaur DNA
raises many questions that challenge evolution. The story also suggests
that birds are modern dinosaurs, and yet there are many problems with
this theory.
Dinosaurs, though extinct, are here to stay. They have the power to
spur the imagination of young minds, but let us not quash this
fascination. Yes, evolutionists are using them to promote their theory,
but we can use them to teach about God’s creation. Let us give our
children the tools to recognize good science, and interpret it
correctly.

The Wisdom of Accountability Measures

If
a person wants to be wicked, there is no stopping him. There are not
enough accountability measures to put in place to stop a free moral
agent from willfully choosing to sin. A parent could go so far as to
lock up a teenager in an empty room in hopes of keeping him from sinning
against God, but even then the teen could think and say
wicked things. Even though Adam and Eve lived in a sinless world at one
time; even though they were surrounded by good things (Genesis 1:31);
even though they were able to walk and talk with God, live in the midst
of the tree of life, and freely eat of every tree of the garden with the
exception of one (Genesis 3:8; 2:9,16-17), they eventually chose the
one thing that God forbade.
Generally speaking, however, Christians do not want to sin. Rather, we desperately desire to live in accordance with God’s will. The reason we call ourselves Christians is because we want
to be Christ-like. That said, we are not perfect. More than we like to
admit, we give in to “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and
the pride of life” (1 John 2:16). For this reason, (1) we pray that we
are not led into temptation, but instead are delivered from it (Matthew
6:13), and (2) lest we fall, we “take heed” (1 Corinthians 10:12) and
walk carefully (Ephesians 5:15).
One area in which all Christians in the 21st century need to
walk carefully is the World Wide Web. With one or two clicks of a
button, a Christian can find himself “walking” in the filthiest places
on Earth. More evil can be discovered more quickly on the Internet than anywhere in world history.
In 1996, the U.S. Department of Justice argued, “Never before in the
history of telecommunications media in the United States has so much indecent (and obscene) material been so easily accessible by so many minors in so many American homes with so few
restrictions” (1996, emp. added). Literally, in just a few seconds,
with merely a few clicks of a mouse, or by typing in only three or four
words in a search engine, men and women, boys and girls, can view almost
any wicked thing imaginable.
What proactive steps can Christians take to shield ourselves and our
families from the many dangers on the Internet? Some Christians may
think that they and their children are strong enough to withstand
whatever temptation comes their way over the Internet. Such an attitude
is seen to be very unwise in light of the apostle Paul’s admonitions to
Christians. Not only did he warn the Corinthians to “let him who thinks
he stands take heed lest he fall,” he also wrote to the churches of
Galatia, saying, “For if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he
is nothing, he deceives himself” (Galatians 6:3). Admittedly, we will
never be able to put so many safety measures in place that the
possibility of sinning is removed. But, there is much wisdom in being
“careful” to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness,”
including those “shameful” things “done…in secret” (Ephesians 5:11-15).
Every Christian family that uses the Internet, seriously needs to
consider filtering and accountability software. Filtering software, such
as that offered by OpenDNS® or Safe Eyes® (among
others), can block a myriad of different kinds of sinful sites that we
might be tempted to visit. Though filtering software is not effective
100% of the time at blocking immoral sites, it can be a great safety
measure most of the time.
Perhaps an even better (or additional) line of defense for Christians
is accountability software such as that provided by Covenant Eyes®.
This software tracks every site you visit and every search you make,
whether on a computer, a phone, or a tablet. It then passes that
information on to an accountability partner of your choosing (e.g.,
husband, wife, parent, close friend, etc.). For example, a parent can
install this software on a teen’s laptop, tablet, or smart phone, and
once a week get a report of what web sites the teen has visited or
attempted to visit. This enables families to have continual informed and
meaningful discussions about how Christians can wisely use the Internet
in a Christ-like way.
Most all of us put various kinds of physical safety measures in place
in our lives. Whether it is a law or not, many of us wear our seat belts
faithfully. We may purchase security systems for our house or apartment
in case of break-ins. We teach our children how to escape from their
rooms in case there is a fire. Sometimes the physical precautions we put
in place seem almost endless. Unfortunately, most people either forget
or ignore the need for all of the spiritual defense measures that can
help Christians continue walking in the light, rather than be
continually tempted to stumble in darkness. It seems to me, two of the
best tools that Christians can use in the 21st century are filtering and accountability software. I would encourage you to visit such helpful Web sites as www.safeeyes.com and www.covenanteyes.com.